On Jun 1, 5:49 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:> On 6/1/2013 9:52 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:>>>>>>>>>> > "fom" <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote in message> >news:9bWdnVL04P_k_DTMnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com...> >> On 5/31/2013 10:36 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:>> >>> Isn't indeed self-referentiality> >>> (circularity) the essential character of the (any) purely logical> >>> system?>> >> My answer to that is yes.>> >> I have done a great deal of work to understand how modern mathematical> >> logic has reached the point where its foundations are almost> >> exclusively focused on non-circularity. So, while you see this> >> condition as a matter of fact, such a claim in the mathematics> >> community may get you some metaphorical version of tar and feathers.>> > My point was that mathematical logic is not logic, it's mathematics:> > it's an abuse of language. Then I don't see why the mathematician> > should flame the logician for a claim on logic, all the more so when the> > logician in question is saying that mathematics cannot be reduced to> > logic in any meaningful sense (and vice versa). In simpler terms, what> > I can see in the logistic approach is, firstly reduce all endeavours to> > mechanics, then call mathematics logic, finally assert that all derives> > from logic.>> This helps me to understand your position better.>> I cannot disagree with you. In trying to understand> foundational claims, I find myself in awe of the fact> that one might think that the presumed explanatory power> of mathematics derives from linguistic forms. On the> other hand, the philosophical considerations of something> like Russell's knowledge by acquaintance have significant> merit. Thus, the approach to logic without regard to> what mathematicians do is extremely interesting. They> are very different subjects.>> Did you feel that I had flamed Zuhair when I pointed> out that we had different senses of demarcation? I> certainly did not mean anything that way. And, if that> is his interpretation then I shall offer an apology.>> Although I do not study logic in the sense that others> do, my questions have led me to respect logic as its> own discipline. I recently posted this response> to the question "What is a proof" on math.stackexchange.com>> http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/397972/what-is-a-proof/404328...>> Although I might be wrong, I do not think it is the> typical response from someone trained in mathematics.

Hmm, "fom" as "mitch": that makes sense as of Mitch's connectivesthen as to fom's initial posts.